Firewall installation

[Guest]

I've got XP with SP2 and am thinking about installing Zone Alarm. Are there
any known conflicts with the windows firewall or other things I have to look
out for? Also. is it a good idea since I have a dial-up connection.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Alias]

Unlike xp with SP1 or earlier,xp with SP2 has a very good firewall and is
quite easy to use,thier is no reason to add one....

Not add one, replace it. Sygate is better than Zone Alarm, IMO, but either
are better than SP's "firewall".

With a dial up, you need one too.

Alias

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I've got XP with SP2 and am thinking about installing Zone
Alarm. Are
there any known conflicts with the windows firewall

I know of no specific conflicts, but there's always the
possibility of one. I wouldn't run two firewalls, though. You
achieve no extra protection, you incur the extra overhead of
running two firewalls, and you run the risk (probably small, but
not zero) of conflicts between them.
See
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx

which includes the following:

"Q. Should I use both the built-in firewall and a software
firewall from a different company on my Windows XP computer?

"A. No. Running multiple software firewalls is unnecessary for
typical home computers, home networking, and small-business
networking scenarios. Using two firewalls on the same connection
could cause issues with connectivity to the Internet or other
unexpected behavior. One firewall, whether it is the Windows XP
Internet Connection Firewall or a different software firewall,
can provide substantial protection for your computer."



Also note that if you update your third-party firewall to a new
version, the update routine will probably turn it off first. If
the Windows firewall isn't running, you will temporarily be left
with no running firewall, which is very dangerous. So turn on the
Windows firewall temporarily before doing maintenance on your
third-party firewall.



The Windows firewall monitors incoming traffic only. Almost any
third-party firewall will also monitor outbound traffic, stopping
rogue programs trying to call home, and is a better choice. I run
the free version of ZoneAlarm on both computers here under SP2
and I'm happy with it.

or other things I
have to look out for? Also. is it a good idea since I have a
dial-up
connection.

Some people will tell you that you don;t need a firewall with a
dial-up connection, only with an always-on connection. I
completely disagree. You need a firewall if you connect to the
internet. It doesn't matter how long you're connected. If you're
connected there's risk, and you should protect yourself against
that risk.

 

[Alias]

Also note that if you update your third-party firewall to a new version,
the update routine will probably turn it off first. If the Windows
firewall isn't running, you will temporarily be left with no running
firewall, which is very dangerous. So turn on the Windows firewall
temporarily before doing maintenance on your third-party firewall. --
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Interesting point I hadn't considered. Thanks.

Alias

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Interesting point I hadn't considered. Thanks.

You're welcome. To give credit where it's due, I believe it was
the late Alex Nichol who first said something like this, and I
picked it up from him, and added the point to my reply.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I've got XP with SP2 and am thinking about installing Zone Alarm. Are there
any known conflicts with the windows firewall or other things I have to look
out for? Also. is it a good idea since I have a dial-up connection.

Thanks
Bill

The Windows Firewall included with SP2, while vastly superior to
the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability and configurability,
is still rather lacking, as a solid security component. It still can't
supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it intended to do so; rather, it's
intended to complement them. And, like the original ICF, it will not
monitor out-going traffic.

WinXP's built-in firewall is _not_ designed to act as a compliment
to 3rd party firewalls, and Microsoft actually recommends disabling it
if you use another software firewall, although a great many people have
reported no problems using ICF in conjunction with other products. My
position is that running two or more software firewalls simultaneously
is generally unnecessary and can _sometimes_ cause conflicts, possibly
negating the protection of both. In any event, having two firewalls
running simultaneously is most certainly an unnecessary drain on system
resources.

WinXP's built-in firewall is usually adequate at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall
does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or
someone else using your computer) might download and install
inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than
to check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the
bad or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any
application you have on your hard drive is there because you want it
there, and therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet.
Further, because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will
also assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Unlike xp with SP1 or earlier,xp with SP2 has a very good firewall and is
quite easy to use,thier is no reason to add one....

Wrong, as usual. Why do you bother? The Windows Firewall included
with SP2, while superior to the original ICF in terms of visibility,
usability and configurability, is still lacking, as a solid security
component. It still can't supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it
intended to do so. It's simply a "better-than-nothing" stop-gap measure.
And, like the original ICF, it will not monitor out-going traffic.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Leif Nordmand Andersen]

Hi,

Unlike xp with SP1 or earlier,xp with SP2 has a very good firewall and is
quite easy to use,thier is no reason to add one....

Well it is always a matter of opinion

Anyway if you are on a dialup and you're not too much on, maybe the
inbuild Windows XP SP2 firewall i fine.

However it has one flaw ... it only protects for incoming 'things',
not for outgoing 'things'!!

I use ZoneAlarm ... not many in these groups like it, it's quite
bloated, but I find it easy to use and I've used it for years (need to
renew my 2 year suscribsion

The only problem I have with ZoneAlarm, it's unstable if you access
the computer with zonealarm with Remote Access Connection ... but that
is another story. Apparently it isn't for others, since I can't find
any to share my problem with.

Regards Leif.

 

[Plato]

I've got XP with SP2 and am thinking about installing Zone Alarm. Are there
any known conflicts with the windows firewall or other things I have to look
out for? Also. is it a good idea since I have a dial-up connection.

You dont really need a firewall with a dialup.

 

[K]

Shouldn't you have just a wee bit of technical expertise before you respond
to questions?
K

"Plato" wrote in message:

 

[t.cruise]

I have had no problems using Zone Alarm. Opinions may vary, but the majority of tech
people I know seem to agree with me that Zone Alarm is better than the Windows XP (or SP2)
firewall. The Zone Alarm GUI is very user friendly too. These days, even a dial-up
connection isn't safe. A firewall is now essential.
--

T.C.
t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
Remove [NoSpam] to reply

In memory of my mentor Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

 

[Guest]

Thanks everyone for all your great answers. Installed ZA yesterday and all is
well--so far
Bill

I have had no problems using Zone Alarm. Opinions may vary, but the majority of tech
people I know seem to agree with me that Zone Alarm is better than the Windows XP (or SP2)
firewall. The Zone Alarm GUI is very user friendly too. These days, even a dial-up
connection isn't safe. A firewall is now essential.
--

T.C.
t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
Remove [NoSpam] to reply

In memory of my mentor Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

I've got XP with SP2 and am thinking about installing Zone Alarm. Are there
any known conflicts with the windows firewall or other things I have to look
out for? Also. is it a good idea since I have a dial-up connection.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Bruce Chambers]

You dont really need a firewall with a dialup.

I strongly disagree. Even years ago, when all I had was a dial-up
connection, getting a new IP address each time I connected to the ISP,
ZoneAlarm would report several attempted unauthorized connections per
hour. The frequency of the alerts became so annoying that I eventually
turned off the notifications. The Internet certainly hasn't become any
safer since then.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[HeeroYuy]

You dont really need a firewall with a dialup.

While crackers would most certainly prefer broadband users to narrowband
users, it is still recommended that you should have a firewall. The reason
being is that crackers won't hesitate to intrude on whatever is the easiest
target.